Rocket Launcher Primary needs to go

dear god there's so much wrong with this post it's hilarious. Take the system of how rockets used to be in older fps and you'd probably whine more than a child who didn't get his sweets at the grocery store. Your spunkgargleweewee bullet shooters are to blame for the way rockets are in here, instead of rockets being spammable and less of a hick they are now they turned them into fire and forget weapons as you see here. And considering you're VS and your ES LMG is based on splash damage you have even less room to complain about splash damage as well.

The problem with this rocket primary issue isn't so much that you can be easily killed by the rockets. It's a big mamma jamma explosive projectile, if it hits you it very well should disintegrate your everything. However, the fact that these rockets and missiles do practically nothing to vehicles and are best suited to destroying infantry in close-quarters combat is plainly ridiculous.

I have the same issue with C4. It is the most effective means of destroying ground vehicles, MAX units or even small groups of normal infantry(or that pesky bugger chasing you just 'round the corner there) and there's really no down-side to having it on all of your classes that can equip it. It is by far the most utilitarian weapon in the game right now. But that's a topic for another discussion...

The most sensible solution to this rocket primary nonsense would be to implement a backblast and a one or two second arming timer on the warheads. Shoulder-mounted rocket launchers are tubes and those rockets expel a lot of gas out the back of those tubes. Coupled with a minor arming timer(for operator safety), this makes the area directly behind a rocket launcher far more dangerous than what's coming out the front.

The rocket should still damage you, of course...like I said, it's a big honking projectile. However, we're future soldiers protected by energy shields that stop higher-energy bullets with little effort. SO, if you're hit with an unarmed rocket, it would merely damage your shields. Or if you don't have shields, break your body.

Basically, my complaint is that certain weapons aren't being used for their intended purpose. Rocket launchers are designed specifically to destroy armored ground vehicles yet they are currently the worst method of carrying out this task. C4 was designed with the purpose of demolitions, not destroying vehicles or infantry. I'd like to see both of these weapons get refactored to actually be useful at what they're supposed to be useful at. Part of that involves limiting their usability in situations they weren't intended to be used in with realistic and logical limitations.

Actually, in warfare, weapons that fire guided rocket-propelled ordinance are referred to as missiles. If it's unguided, they're typically called rockets. Though you are partially correct in that missiles are most-often rocket-propelled.

At this time im willing to bet ive got more hours in TF2 than you have in your life, kid.

And I'm willing to bet that I've put more hours into doom then you've been alive
But wait, if you've even touched TF2 you wouldn't even have a problem with splash damage in the first place so guess that makes it a lie anyway

****ing engineers, using their bodies as shields to protect their sunderer. JUST LET ME SHOOT THE SUNDERER GUYS, PLEASE. And then I got frustrated and AT mined it. Inconsiderate little buggers they are...

MARKET GARDENERS, AWAAAAAAAY

I think its stupid yes but I'd not reduce its damage vs infantry.
I'd make it so due to backfire of the rocket or simple NANITES it should kill the HA that fires it if its less than 10m.

That would be hilarious but a Max would be totally safe indoors so not a good idea.

Nope, i main Heavy.

You could say its had a kind of impact on how i like to play in PS2.

(Hint: MAX at every reasonable opportunity.)

Join TR, the only better than one mini gun is two :}

I have no idea. It's not like forumside requires any thoughtful reasoning to call for a nerf.

and to the guys who say I want a Rocket Launcher nerf: I would rather prefer a buff to their AV ability. Or make them so that you have to ADS to fire it so you cant hipfire it like a shotgun. Oh and you get a thumbs up for your name!

dude you get killed by pods still good god nose guns are better at it pods have been nerfed so hard you need a full clip to kill a troop would be faster to land and knife the guy.

There must be an unspoken code of honor for people who use the RL against infantry to not engage each other.. because I use the RL against infantry when the situation dictates and I can count on one hand the number of times I've been killed by a RL.

That or forumside warriors are blowing things completely out of proportion..

You at least have to spend certs to get C4 as well as spend infantry resources. You have to do neither for the rocket launcher. But I do agree with you, C4 is just as versatile as rocket launchers. They are both very effective against everything in this game. It's an obvious balance problem

You are basically promoting more TK'ing. Most people don't care about TK'ing a friendly if it means killing an enemy, it will not deter the common rocket primary scrub from continued use. Especially because you don't get as many grief points for hitting friendlies with large explosions. You get less grief points from putting C4 in the middle of a crowded room with friendlies vs unloading an entire LMG clip into friendlies (that is why the lasher is a grief point machine). The arming distance idea will nerf the rocket launcher too heavily. The arming distance idea is likewise very bad. It would make the rocket launcher bad against MAX's and Tanks in close proximity, essentially making it useless in situations it was designed for (Decimator).

I don't agree with this either. C4 is a good tool for a solo player to take out tanks/MAX's, however there is a lot of risk involved due to needing to be in close proximity. Where as rocket launchers are great against tanks/MAX's in groups and are better because they can be used at a safer distance. If you don't play VS, I could understand why you wouldn't understand my point that rocket launchers are incredibly good against vehicles though. Coordinated Lancer squads can rip through vehicles quite well from a safe distance. Also, rocket launchers are much better than C4 against air vehicles. When was the last time you killed an air vehicle that is actually flying around with C4 as opposed to a G2A lockon rocket launcher?

A copy paste from a different topic...

LtSqueak said: ↑

“"The ML-7 launches unguided rockets that are effective against both infantry and armor."

Maybe it's not broken because it's doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. And you're right. If my enemies decide to continue to be mindless little lemmings and stream 10 at a time through one door instead of flank, I shall continue to use the best weapon (as stated by it's own description) to combat them.

The only point I will concede is to increase self damage when fired at point blank range. But I'm not a coder, so I have no clue how easy this would be to put in.”

Yes, I've seen the rocket launcher's description in game quoted several times. It doesn't prove any point regarding its balance. In fact its description more so proves how overpowered and versatile the weapon is. I guess you would also think a nuclear bomb that could be dropped on bases from Liberators would be balanced as well if it killed everything in a 100 meter radius? I suppose if the description of the nuclear bomb in game read "effective against infantry and vehicles" you would consider the nuclear bomb a balanced weapon? My point has been made.

In ArmA Domination, I don't have to spend anything on a Javelin, satchel charges or a stinger launcher. I can just load them up, fly out to an AO and instantly destroy a single tank, building or helicopter full of dudes. Of course, then I'd have to go all the way back to base for another unless I had the foresight to load an ammo crate into whatever vehicle I'd brought out there with me in which case I'd be able to destroy another vehicle or aircraft.

But I'm not saying that that Planetside 2 needs to be ArmA, just that the cost of this stuff is largely irrelevent to how useful or gratifying they are.

That's silly. I hate TKing and I know most people hate being team-killed. So how do we solve this issue if backblast becomes something that can easily wipe out a group of friendlies behind you? Well, firstly you'd start losing objectives more regularly if you don't learn to manage your fire or simply to not use these launchers indoors. Secondly, you should obviously get weapons-locked if it happens too often.

I mean, how do you manage teamkilling in other games with friendly fire? You kick then ban people from your server. Obviously, that would be a pretty extreme punishment for Planetside, so providing more temporary solutions to the problem should suffice. Warnings about backblast, weapons locking, perhaps class locking for periods of time. I don't know, but there's definitely things they could do to mitigate team killing caused by backblast.

Even if backblast proved to be entirely detrimental to gameplay, the one to two second arming timer on warheads would be reasonable.

What risk? If you die in your attempt, you respawn and try it again. In most situations, it only takes a few seconds to get back to your target. So you're either going to make that target extremely paranoid of crazy suicide bombers or catch him off-guard after a few attempts.

I do play VS, though not all that much. But needing a group of three or more people to take out a single ground target with an anti-tank weapon is a little bizarre. It'd be a lot more gratifying if anti-vehicle weapons did more damage per hit but carried only one or two rounds and couldn't be resupplied by ammo boxes. It would even be acceptable to have ammo cost resources like grenades and the vehicles themselves.

I haven't done it myself, but apparently it's one of those things that skilled pilots like to make videos of themselves doing. But I rarely get kills with lock-on missile launchers. Tanks or aircraft, they always manage to get away, often-times while I'm still acquiring a target lock. When I do manage to hit them, it's not a sufficient amount of damage to even deter them in many cases. Minus ESFs, it'll do a good forty-five percent damage to one of them critters or thereabouts.

I read somewhere that "Shot-Guns take skill and are high risk" among some other perplexing deductions coming from the same individual, as well as one other who claimed it's easier to land and use your knife than use LOLPods. I... Uhm. Yeah... *FaceSLEDGEHAMMER*

But really what I meant to say initially was that I'll use my RL as a primary as long as I'm getting the job done, have my fun, have enough ammunition and for as long as PS2 is complete and utterly random CQC twitch InstaGib massacre, caused by more than half the weapons and equipment in the whole FREAKING GAME- Including a whole class, the MAX. That thing was CREATED TO INSTAGIB. So I don't feel bad maining RL. Not one bit, considering some of the ways I've been completely wrecked by people who can't play an FPS unless they get Tool-Tips on how to walk or crouch. Because they happened to use said weapons or class when I stumbled upon them. "Skill". Right.

Also, KD is my Meta right now; Until there IS a Meta. If there's one fast enough with all the issues driving me away from playing.

So you're going to nerf the rocket launcher, making it useless against infantry, practically useless against MAXs, and only having the advantage of range over C4 against vehicles?

Really, you'd think no one got killed with rocket launchers in other games. Have any of you played TF2? Come on now.

rocket launchers don't deserve any buffs because they have no resource cost or acquisition timer. Infantry is already OP, it doesn't need to be more so.